frameworks for private foundations - GrantCraft

LEADERSHIP SERIES

FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS A New Model for Impact by Melissa Berman, Ph.D. Dara Major Jason Franklin, Ph.D.

In partnership with

This paper was written by Melissa Berman, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, and Dara Major, independent consultant, who synthesized the research of the Theory of the Foundation initiative and conducted additional interviews to unpack and illustrate core concepts. This paper is based on an original series of Theory of the Foundation white papers by Melissa Berman and informed by additional contributions from Jason Franklin, Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University. It was edited by Jen Bokoff and Erin Nylen-Wysocki, Foundation Center. It was designed by Betty Saronson, Foundation Center. Funding for this paper was generously provided to Foundation Center by the donors to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ Theory of the Foundation initiative (see p. 26 for a complete list of funders). This paper is part of the GrantCraft Leadership Series. Resources in this series are not meant to give instructions or prescribe solutions; rather they are intended to spark ideas, stimulate discussion, and suggest possibilities. Look for these icons to explore more content:

GrantCraft Connection

Podcast

To access this paper and other resources, please visit grantcraft.org. You are welcome to excerpt, copy, or quote from this paper with attribution to GrantCraft and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and inclusion of the copyright. For more information, e-mail GrantCraft at [email protected]. ©2017 Foundation Center and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Unported License creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Table of Contents 5

Introduction to the Theory of the Foundation Framework Philanthropy is changing and evolving more quickly than ever, with new societal challenges, new players, and new strategies. In this time of change, questions of how foundations can optimize their effectiveness are increasingly urgent. We provide a simple overview of the Theory of the Foundation, some of its benefits, and a roadmap for funders interested in exploring their own foundations’ frameworks.

10 Charter What is a foundation’s form of governance, how will it make decisions—and why? In this chapter, we discuss a foundation’s charter, which describes the foundation’s scope, form of governance, and decision-making protocol at the highest level, based on written and unwritten rules.

14 Social Compact To whom is a foundation accountable, and how is it making a difference with the special status it has been given? In this chapter we illuminate a foundation’s social compact, which is an agreement, either implicit or explicit, with society and key stakeholders.

17 Operating Capabilities What must a foundation not just do or obtain, but excel at in order to achieve its mission? In this chapter, we explore a foundation’s operating capabilities, which are the dominant approaches that guide how the foundation carries out its work and the core competencies, resources, skills, and processes that it cultivates in order to achieve results.

22 Takeaways for Funders In this final section, we make the case for examining foundation frameworks and offer useful tools to help you begin to put these ideas into practice today.

25 Philanthropy Canvas Worksheet

About This Paper WHY THIS PAPER?

WHO ARE THE AUTHORS?

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) developed the

GrantCraft developed this paper in partnership with RPA.

Theory of the Foundation framework to stimulate discussion

Based on two reports for Theory of the Foundation initiative

of foundations as organizations at a time when philanthropy

funders written by Melissa Berman, president of RPA, this

is changing and evolving more quickly than ever, with new

paper updates and expands on the original research. For this

societal challenges, new players, and new strategies. The

paper, we synthesized and drew substantially from initiative

inspiration was iconic management expert Peter F. Drucker,

publications and tools, reviewed additional organizational

who, over 20 years ago, called on organizational leaders

theory literature, and conducted 10 original interviews with

to develop a “theory of the business” by considering three

a diverse set of funders in the United States and Europe.

fundamental sets of assumptions: environment, mission, and

The paper also draws on extensive interviews, symposia,

core competencies. For a theory to be valid, Drucker argued,

and literature reviews conducted independently by RPA in

its assumptions must be valid, congruent, widely understood,

two phases, engaging foundation leaders in Europe and

and regularly assessed. RPA's key insight was that the

the US. Dozens of foundations provided financial support,

absence of such a theory in philanthropy leads to blind spots

ideas, and analysis that have informed all aspects of this

and underperformance at both the organizational and sector

work. Additional research was conducted in partnership with

levels. To address this, over several years and

the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand

with dozens of foundation partners, RPA developed the

Valley State University and with the Marshall Institute for

Theory of the Foundation. RPA’s approach does not aim

Philanthropy and Social Entrepreneurship at the London

to develop one theory for all foundations but instead to

School of Economics, and by Dara Major, who conducted

create a framework that enables an individual foundation to

original interviews with funders for this paper.

surface its underlying core beliefs and align its purpose and operations in pursuit of public benefit.

Melissa Berman, Ph.D., is the founding president and CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc., an innovative

HOW CAN I USE THIS AS A RESOURCE?

nonprofit philanthropy service launched by the Rockefeller

This resource provides clear, practical guidance for funders

thoughtful, effective philanthropy throughout the world.

looking to examine their organizational structures and

Learn more about RPA at rockpa.org and follow

strategize about their capacities and operations through

@MBermanRPA on Twitter.

family in 2002. RPA’s mission is to help donors create

discussion questions, action steps, and lessons from peers. It is intended to provide an accessible and actionable

Dara Major is an independent strategy and management

introduction of RPA’s Theory of the Foundation to a global

consultant, helping clients to meaningfully align resources

funder audience.

for results—at the individual, organizational, and field levels. With over two decades of leadership experience in

WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?

philanthropy, she works with a diverse range of philanthropic

To learn more about the Theory of the Foundation initiative

on the philanthropic sector; for more information visit

and key foundation partners, as well as to access RPA’s full complement of publications and tools on this topic, please visit TheoryoftheFoundation.org. For more information, contact [email protected]. GrantCraft, a service of Foundation Center, offers resources to help funders be more strategic about their work, and has published this paper as part of its leadership collection to encourage a conversation about this topic. Explore GrantCraft’s resources at grantcraft.org and on Twitter by following @grantcraft. Other services and tools that Foundation Center offers can be accessed at foundationcenter.org.

and social sector organizations. Dara Major has written widely daramajor.com, contact [email protected], and follow Dara on Twitter @DaraMajor. Jason Franklin, Ph.D., is the W.K. Kellogg Community Philanthropy Chair at the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University. As the holder of the nation’s first endowed chair focused on community philanthropy, Dr. Franklin engages in research, teaching, service, and thought leadership to explore and advance the field of community philanthropy, nationally and internationally.

Introduction to the Theory of the Foundation Framework Philanthropy is changing and evolving more quickly than ever, with new societal challenges, new players, and new strategies. In this time of change, questions of how foundations can optimize their effectiveness for the public good are increasingly urgent—and the ability to self-reflect or even be introspective on an organizational level is critical. The Theory of the Foundation offers a framework for

Operating Capabilities: These are the

introspection that enables foundations to address

dominant approaches that guide how a foundation

urgent questions, explore fundamental beliefs or implicit

carries out its work and the core competencies,

assumptions about their work, and more effectively align

resources, skills, and processes that it cultivates in order

foundation purpose, public benefit, and action. And, while

to achieve results. Operating capabilities encompass

theory gives us a way to think, this paper offers pragmatic

financial and non-financial assets, talent and knowledge

ways to use the framework to inform everyday practice.

development, internal and external collaboration, and organizational structure.

Fundamentally, the Theory of the Foundation framework is composed of three core elements—charter, social

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) embarked on a

compact, and operating capabilities—that together inform

multiyear program of collaborative research with dozens

a foundation’s structure and approach.

of funders in the United States and Europe to uncover and

Charter: The charter is a foundation’s scope, form of

distill these elements into a conceptual framework— a Theory of the Foundation—to help private foundations

governance, and decision-making protocol at the highest

align resources more effectively for the impact they

level, and the precursor to mission. Charter encompasses

envision. In this GrantCraft paper, we’re laying out this

origin stories, board composition, where and how

important research to help funders of all kinds to reflect on

decisions are made, values, issue focus, and culture.

foundation theory and strengthen philanthropic practice.

It has both written and unwritten elements.

Social Compact: Social compact is a foundation’s reciprocal agreement, either implicit or explicit, with society and key stakeholders about the specific value it will create. It underpins

CHARTER

SOCIAL COMPACT

how the foundation defines its legitimacy and license to operate, and the actions considered “appropriate” to undertake. Social compact encompasses partner relationships, external accountabilities, relationship to

OPERATING CAPABILITIES

society and government, and transparency.

GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center

FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS

5

As in any line of work, it is important to periodically

built, one by one, new research institutions in resource-

pause and reflect on why and how we do what we do.

scarce countries—and then, over a period of 60 years,

For example, the long-tenured chief administrator of a

funded basic and applied agricultural research across

top-rated hospital might be working purposefully toward

this network. Athough some of this work had unintended

a clear mission, yet make a point to routinely consider

negative environmental consequences, their efforts

the hospital’s underlying theory: why it exists, how it

resulted in extraordinary increases in crop yields and a

relates to its customers and partners, and what it can do

global science, production, and distribution ecosystem that

organizationally to enable continual advances in medicine

saved the lives of at least a billion people around the world.

and deliver the best possible care. Similarly, funders who pause to reflect on the theories that shape their

Today’s foundations face different starting points,

foundations will be better able to focus their work and

challenges, and opportunities. Knowledge, capacity, and

deliver the best possible results.

resources are fragmented rather than concentrated as over 100,000 U.S. foundations and 1.5 million nonprofits now work across a highly developed, multi-sector

“It’s an unnatural act to work across silos. It requires constant attention, reinforcement of behavioral norms, and intentionality about the culture we try to build.” Will Miller, The Wallace Foundation

constellation of institutions, fields, and networks. Collaboration at scale has become both possible, given this rich supply of external capacity, and increasingly feasible, as our collective imagination and adaptive capacity begin to catch up to game-changing advances in technology. At the same time, inequality and a loss of trust in major societal institutions are on the rise globally, while humanitarian crises and a strained public sector raise questions about the purpose and role of foundations. Though many foundations remain structured according to the operating realities of the past, foundation leaders

While other GrantCraft resources focus on a particular

are increasingly questioning their future as sectoral

aspect of or approach to grantmaking, this paper addresses

boundaries blur. Newer philanthropic approaches—such as

the underlying framework of organizational dynamics that

community-based decision making, capital aggregation, and

shape them. It is particularly intended for use by leaders of

major grantmaking through philanthropic spend-downs—

private, endowed foundations. However, it will also serve

are challenging philanthropic norms and talent-sourcing,

as a useful reflection tool for leaders of community, public,

investment, and centralized decision-making models. The

and corporate foundations, though different dynamics

private sector is making significant “double bottom-line”

come into play for different foundation types.

investments in social solutions (and exerting a growing influence on agenda setting for the common good) while

NEW OPERATING CONTEXTS

foundations begin to imagine what investing 100 percent

When the earliest foundations formed over 100 years ago,

For example, as foundations respond to changing dynamics,

the external operating landscape was remarkably different.

of their assets for social return and impact might look like.

There were few well-established nonprofit organizations to work with, and fewer still that had the capacity to operate or even collaborate at scale. For foundations looking to have an impact in a specific area, the first step was often to hire, design, and then create the capacity needed to execute—a process that could take years. For instance, to address global inequities that led to food shortages and the prospect of mass starvation, the

GrantCraft Connection Check out GrantCraft’s Funding Innovation blog series, produced in partnership with Glasspockets and the Vodafone Foundation, which explores new funding practices and philanthropic trends at the intersection of problem solving, technology, and design.

Rockefeller and Ford foundations and other partners first



6

many are seeking to create new value by integrating current foundation capabilities across programs and functions, including knowledge management and communications. Yet as Wallace Foundation president Will Miller notes, “It’s an unnatural act to work across silos. It requires constant attention, reinforcement of behavioral norms, and intentionality about the culture we try to build.” This integration function is increasingly being

A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR REFLECTION As foundations evolve the ways in which they reflect and make decisions, there’s a rich body of knowledge to draw from, grounded in other sectors and in the wider world of organizational theory. With over 100 years of philanthropic practice to reference, there are also critical lessons to be learned from within philanthropy.

staffed, at the senior leadership team level, with talent from other industries, such as finance, consulting, and general management. In all sectors, traditional, mechanistic organization and management forms are beginning to shift to more organic, network-based approaches. These shifts are prompting many foundation leaders to actively re-examine traditional or long-held philanthropic assumptions, frameworks, and models and cultures to ensure that today’s foundations deliver results that are greater than just the sum of their grants. This level of introspection requires a deep awareness and shared understanding of the critical elements that underpin the foundation—how it makes decisions (charter), how it

“We’re not just responsible to the people that gave us those resources to begin with; we must also consider the kind of change we’re trying to effect, and how we involve the very people who are going to be affected by every move we make.” Katy Love, Wikimedia Foundation

sees itself interacting with others (social compact), and how it chooses to deploy resources (operating capabilities)— and ensures that people inside the foundation are aligned around a common understanding. This common understanding is key to a foundation’s culture and is a powerful motivator and enabler of essential behaviors. Ford Foundation president Darren Walker notes, “The Theory of the Foundation is an exciting idea and an important framework for bringing more rigor and a depth of analysis to understanding philanthropy’s role.”

Why take a fresh look at your foundation’s theory? Click here to hear more from the authors on the external landscape changes that are prompting many foundation leaders to actively re-examine traditional or long-held philanthropic assumptions, frameworks, and models—and how the Theory of the Foundation can help to ensure that today’s foundations deliver results that are greater than

RPA was inspired to develop the Theory of the Foundation after reflecting on Peter Drucker’s seminal work on the “theory of the business”—which called upon business leaders to regularly assess and adjust their business models and fundamental beliefs or assumptions in response to changing conditions. These theories and models have, at different times and to varying degrees, influenced philanthropic practice. Compelling as they are, however,

GrantCraft Connection Read and use Lucy Bernholz’s Blueprint series—an overview of the current philanthropic landscape, major trends, and horizons where you can expect some important breakthroughs each year— to open conversations about the context for your work and expanding your strategic framework.

just the sum of their grants.



7

they don’t capture the distinct nature of a foundation,

We hope the framework and tools presented here

whose mission goes beyond its own performance to

encourage funders in start-up and well-established

reach a broader public. Foundations demand more than

foundations alike to reflect on their work and to

just adaptation from other sectors; to fully realize their

envision and implement more effective strategies for

potential, they demand distinct consideration.

the 21st century.

The Theory of the Foundation framework and related tools will be useful for funders of all kinds and at all levels


of leadership. They are particularly intended for use by

What can we learn from grantmaking

leaders of private, endowed foundations to strengthen

practices and new operating realities in the public

decision making and resource allocation—individually,

sector? Read the Leadership Series paper,

with their boards and staff, and collaboratively, with

Innovations in Open Grantmaking, produced in

foundations and other partners.

partnership with the GovLab, which seeks to provide inspiration and early proof of concept regarding

Leaders of community, public, and corporate foundations

innovative practices at every stage of the grantmaking

can use the framework to consider their approaches, even

process within various U.S. government agencies.

as different dynamics come into play for funders that are connected to a corporation or actively raise funds.

Questions to Consider l

l

Reflect on a foundation that was established

l

To what extent, if any, is your foundation’s

before you were born. What are its notable

current approach rooted in the experiences

characteristics?

or operating environment of its past?

Think next about a foundation just starting up today. What do you think would be different about it? Why?



8

Core Framework

Charter

Operating Capabilities

GOVERNANCE

The foundation’s scope, form of governance, and decision-making protocol

Dominant approaches that guide how a foundation carries out its work

DECISION MAKING

DECISION MAKING

RESOURCING

FLEXIBILITY

VALUES INITIATIVE COMMITMENTS PRINCIPLES & CULTURE

PROGRAMMING

MISSION & PURPOSE

RELATIONSHIPS STAKEHOLDERS COMMUNICATION TRANSPARENCY

RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIETY SCOPE

ACCOUNTABILITY

EXTERNAL EXPECTATIONS

Social Compact Implicit or explicit agreement with society on the value the foundation will create



9

Charter A foundation’s charter answers the question: What is a foundation’s form of governance, how will it make decisions—and why?

A charter defines and describes a foundation’s scope, form

Subsequent stewards may revamp a foundation’s

of governance, and decision-making protocol at the highest

charter based on what they observe; others may view

level. The charter is the precursor to mission, and shapes

a foundation’s formal, written charter as a mandate to

and is informed by the organization’s culture. It is a mix

honor forever. For some foundations, the charter captures

of formal, written elements (such as founding documents,

what the donor is committed to, which may change

statements of intent, and legacy letters) and informal, less

over time. It may describe areas of activity (such as the

tangible ones (such as culture, style, and tradition), and

arts, Cleveland, or children) or a set of cultural values

may encompass what is explicit from the founder as well

(such as a commitment to excellence or to the Alaskan

as the commitments and choices of subsequent stewards

outdoors). It may address traditional elements of mission,

(including boards, CEOs, and senior leadership). A charter

communicating intention and direction, but may also go

may be fairly open and flexible, or heavily prescribed.

beyond that to describe the foundation’s values and culture.

Philanthropy typically distinguishes private foundations

The elements of the charter, from written founding

by whether they are family or independent, implicitly

documents to unwritten culture or style, define how a

recognizing that governance and the role of the donor

foundation makes fundamental decisions—and, perhaps

or their descendants play a major role in the structure

more importantly what decisions it cannot make. For

of a foundation; in the Theory of the Foundation, these

instance, Rasmuson Foundation’s charter and unwritten

differences are considered central.

culture guide its fundamental decisions. The foundation was started by a family with a desire to create a vibrant

Origin stories are typically the basis of a foundation’s

economy to support Alaska’s families. They chose to invest

charter and act as a reference point and a source of

heavily in the development of Alaska’s natural resources;

inspiration. For example, Rasmuson Foundation was

for this reason, subsequent stewards may be reluctant to

founded by missionaries of the Swedish Covenant Church.

invest in certain environmental advocacy that would limit

Jenny Olson and E.A. Rasmuson came to the small Tlingit

economic opportunities for Alaskans.

Indian village of Yakutat, Alaska separately, met, and married. Later, the couple took on the leadership of a

At any given moment in a foundation’s life cycle, a

struggling local bank, which became a force for progress

foundation’s charter will be at some point along a

as Alaska’s largest statewide financial institution. Today,

continuum that reflects the relative influence and control

this family foundation, established in 1955, continues

of the foundation’s founding donor(s). Some foundations

to honor its founders’ commitment to Alaska’s future

may stay firmly at one point along this continuum

through programs related to quality health care, economic

permanently, while others may shift positions on this

opportunity, vibrant arts, and educational opportunity.

continuum over time.

Origin stories such as this one often have an enduring power over a foundation; even when the donor’s intent is broad and the legal obligations are few, a foundation’s origin continues to shape practice throughout a foundation’s life cycle.

GrantCraft Connection Read this blog post about how the Weissberg Foundation used an unconventional method to help articulate and come to a consensus around their core values.



10

Donor-led

CHARTER CONTINUUM Stewarded Connected

DONOR-LED: A living donor(s) sets mission, priorities, allocation of resources, and forms of engagement; living donors are actively engaged in leading the foundation and these components may change as the thinking of the donor(s) evolves. Some examples include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Simons Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. For donor-led foundations, the charter serves as a blueprint

Open

and leaders operate within the founder’s framework, again by law or through a powerful tradition. They see themselves as stewards and guardians of the founder-determined foundation. Some examples include Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies, Robert Bosch Stiftung, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and The California Wellness Foundation, a health-conversion foundation.

CONNECTED: The successors—whether family members

for successive generations to follow. Laura Arrillaga-

or not—of the founder(s) are not tightly constrained by the

Andreessen, founder and president of Laura Arrillaga-

founder’s vision or priorities, but to varying degrees they still

Andreessen Foundation, notes: “The more narrow, evolved,

look to the founder(s) vision, preferences, and approach to

and specific the founding mission, strategy, grantmaking, and

inform their decisions. This may have happened intentionally

operating principles are, the greater the chance the donor

with a shift from donor-led to connected, or gradually over

intent will be honored. It’s not going to be honored if nobody

time from a stewarded to a less donor-oriented connected

knows what it is.”

style. Trustees of a foundation with a connected charter see themselves as interpreters of tradition whose continuity is

The charter can also serve as an important guide for other

important, but whose expression (in terms of issue area,

types of foundations. For example, community and company-

approach, involvement, and other factors) can evolve. Some

sponsored foundations have their own charters—and also

examples include Surdna Foundation, The Wallace Foundation,

work with a range of individual, family, and corporate donors

and The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

to establish endowments or contribute funds. Jarrett Lucas, executive director of Stonewall Community Foundation,

For example, at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, program officer

reflects on the foundation’s charter in this way: “Stonewall

Arelis Diaz notes that, “Our founder, Will Keith Kellogg, is still

was founded as response to the tragedy of the AIDS epidemic

a really large part of our DNA and his legacy and values are

in the late 1980s, to create a space where our donors could

still embedded in our foundation’s thinking. That definitely

turn loss into legacy. Our founding ethos remains: being

is something we remain very much connected to, at the staff

responsive, imagining alternatives to loss, fostering a culture of

and board levels. Mr. Kellogg is quoted quite often; his insight

philanthropy among LGBTQ people. Most donors to Stonewall

still drives our theory of change and our frameworks for

are of the community that we serve, which really sets us

action. We focus on racial equity, community engagement,

apart.” Conversely, Newman’s Own, Inc., a food and beverage

and leadership—issues that are still very much aligned to his

company, and its sole owner, Newman’s Own Foundation, carry

original purpose.” Generations later, the foundation continues

on Paul Newman’s commitment to use all the money it receives

to look to and interpret the founder’s vision.

from product sales for charitable purposes. Bob Forrester, president and chief executive officer of Newman’s Own Foundation, notes, “While our charter creates an unusual kind of tension within the organization, it’s a constructive tension because we need to go out and earn our money every day like

OPEN: Board members are empowered to select the foundation’s areas of activity and types of engagements based on their collective assessments of external forces and the foundation’s capacity. Their decision making is not constrained

any other business in a competitive environment.”

by how the founder might have reacted, nor do they to adhere

STEWARDED: Though the donor(s) no longer lives or is

may view that tradition as a strategic advantage that should not

to a traditional area of work for the sake of continuity. They

no longer involved with the foundation, the donor’s decisions

be readily abandoned, but that decision reflects an objective

and intentions continue to shape the foundation’s mission,

assessment of a resource, not a legally required or value-based

program areas, and approach. This can happen in formal, legally binding ways through governing documents, or informally through custom and culture. Subsequent boards


loyalty to the past. Examples include Fondazione CRT, Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.


11

Click Here for More... from Arelis Diaz, program officer, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, on how the foundation’s charter serves as its “source code” today.

The distinctions above may be in the eye of the beholder and, in individual foundations, frequently evolve—yet there are meaningful differences in the scope of decision making at each point in the continuum, as foundations approach and use their charters differently. For those with living donors and/or heavily prescribed “donor-led” charters, all key decisions must be aligned with the charter; for those with flexible charters that are only loosely connected to a founder, a check of general principles will likely suffice. Foundations in the middle of this continuum will often have more flexibility to chart

practices known in Europe and around the world, and conversely to attract new design and economic resources from abroad. We have a courageous vision of philanthropy, which adds to the traditional and more recent granting approaches, including impact investing and venture philanthropy, to generate virtuous streams in terms of sustainability, impact, and results.” A foundation that seeks to increase its effectiveness in today’s changing environment is well served by taking the time to reflect on and discuss its charter—both among staff and with the board—to clarify constraints on decision making and potential points of organizational change. A clear and shared understanding of a foundation’s charter can help to ground its past decisions and results, lead to more effective and focused planning and external communication, and illuminate future directions.

their own course within a broader range of discretion, and the charter therefore serves as a guide to orient the


foundation’s direction.

Read how the Andrea & Charles Bronfman

At Fondazione CRT, secretary general Massimo Lapucci

Philanthropies’ decision to spend down intentionally

notes, “We have a clear charter: we are a foundation

gave the next generation of family philanthropists the

of banking origin whose purpose is the growth and

freedom to pursue their own visions and approaches

development of the territory, also in an international

to effect positive change.

dimension. We aim to make our excellence and best


l

What is the story behind your foundation’s

l

If it has changed over time, how and why has

play today?

it changed?

What, if any, influence does the vision of your

l

When, how often, and why do your foundation’s current leaders look to the founders?

What are your foundation’s values, cultural norms, mores, and practices?

founding donor(s) have on the foundation today?

l

How was your foundation initially governed?

origin? How does that origin story come into

l

How do past and current norms influence what, where, and how you fund today?

What kind of charter does your foundation have: clear and explicit, or vague and ambiguous?



12

Social Compact A foundation’s social compact answers the question: To whom is a foundation accountable, and how is it making a difference with the special legal status it has been given?

A social compact is a foundation’s reciprocal agreement,

understanding and communicating meaningful results.

either implicit or explicit, with society and key

There is often a symbiotic relationship between a

stakeholders about the specific value it will create. A

foundation’s charter and its social compact. For example,

defining characteristic of most endowed foundations

a corporate foundation may define its social compact in

is the extraordinary freedom they have to define their

alignment with how its firm defines its customers, and a

own accountabilities, beyond baseline accountabilities to

family foundation may define its social compact in relation

regulators and boards. The social compact articulates

to its charter, prioritizing the family tree that connects

how a foundation defines its license to operate, the

to its founder.

value it creates, and the relationship it has with its stakeholders. It is the source of the foundation’s

Foundations with donor-led or stewarded charters may

legitimacy in the ethical sense.

be less likely to consider changes to their social compacts. Foundations with open charters have the flexibility to update or redefine their social compacts as needed; for

“One of the typical tensions we manage is how ‘political’ and visible the assertion of our own advocacy for mission should be, versus quietly supporting the grantees. On risk, my philosophy is that every foundation should try to do one thing each year that feels scary.” Robert Ross, The California Endowment

example, the Ford Foundation is currently reimagining its social compact with grantees. According to program officer Chris Cardona, “We are forging a different kind of social compact, based on systematic use of feedback loops: listening to grantees, reflecting, learning, changing resource allocations, and then sharing that back out with the field. This has gone hand in hand with a refined programmatic focus.” Foundations are institutions of both private action and public good. Governments routinely question the legitimacy of private foundation support to organizations and issues that may be at odds with their policies. When normative societal values and public policy objectives are debated in the United States and Europe, foundations are often pressured to demonstrate value and justify their unique legal status. A related challenge is the closing of civil society,

Social compact encompasses a foundation’s external

as perceived security threats and a declining respect for civil

accountabilities, relationship to society, and conception of

rights and the rule of law empower governments around

what it considers appropriate to do beyond the minimum

the world to restrict basic freedoms.

required by legal and regulatory frameworks. The cultural legacy of the foundation plays an important role in how the foundation sees itself. The social compact influences how the foundation defines beneficiaries and interacts with a broad range of stakeholders, including grantees, communities, the media, the philanthropic sector, and/or the general public, and its commitment to transparency— as well as the foundation’s overall approach to


GrantCraft Connection Does your foundation have glass pockets? Take this transparency assessment and use it as a road map to discuss and implement other transparency practices at your foundation.


13

In the midst of these challenges, foundations have

determined by the stakeholder communities’ threshold for

enormous freedom to define and defend their social

risk. For endowed foundations, such as the W.K. Kellogg

compacts. Robert Ross, president and chief executive officer

Foundation, risk is often considered in light of the founder’s

of The California Endowment, notes, “We are accountable

vision and appetite for change. As Diaz notes, “The issues

to the communities covered by our mission, primarily. Of

we focus on and our frameworks for action are still very

course, we have the IRS and attorney general to whom

much aligned to our founder’s original purpose.”

we are responsible as well. We believe in spending the reputational and political capital of the foundation in pursuit of key objectives, but we try to do this thoughtfully, selectively, surgically.” Embedded in all foundation social compacts, regardless of how they are defined, is an approach to risk: what type and level of risk is considered acceptable, or necessary? And, how will risk be defined and managed? Examination of a foundation’s social compact can provide important insight, particularly for foundations that struggle to define their approach to risk and articulate when and why they are willing to take risks.

“We are forging a different kind of social compact, based on systematic use of feedback loops: listening to grantees, reflecting, learning, changing resource allocations, and then sharing that back out with the field.” Chris Cardona, Ford Foundation

Foundations often wrestle with whether and how to engage in public discourse about and with the communities and programs they support—while at the same time many wish

A social compact commitment can also be defined

to project a neutral or ideology-free stance. Ross continues,

according to fundamental principles of transparency

“We have conversations among our executive team and

and community engagement, which for many funders

in our boardroom about the matter of risk on a pretty

are entwined. A foundation’s social compact informs its

regular basis. One of the typical tensions we manage is how

overall approach to transparency and the information it

‘political’ and visible the assertion of our own advocacy for

chooses to share, such as goals and strategies, grantmaking

mission should be, versus quietly supporting the grantees.

processes, lessons learned, and failures; it also influences

On risk, my philosophy is that every foundation should

the foundation’s approach to inclusion, mutual support,

try to do one thing each year that feels scary. Most of the

and collaboration. The Wikimedia Foundation’s director of

time, my team and I are pushing the board, but sometimes

resources, Katy Love, notes, “All funders should consider

the board pushes us about thinking differently. It’s a good

how they can involve the communities they’re attempting

healthy balance.” As this example illustrates, a clear social

to serve in their grantmaking and in all of their work.

compact commitment can help to orient all aspects of a

Participatory grantmaking is an important contribution

foundation’s work and frame important conversations

to philanthropic practice that can significantly strengthen

about resource allocation.

grantmaking results. For us, it is fundamental to everything we do and comes right out of our charter and social

Stonewall Community Foundation, a public foundation,

compact with our community of users.”

considers risk in the context of its social compact and a sense of mutual accountability with the LGBTQ community and its donors, notes Jarrett Lucas: “Public foundations organize communities—of donors, stakeholders groups,


grantees—which strengthens the work and, along the

Check out this blog post from RSF Social

way, helps to mitigate risk: we don’t get out in front of our

Finance and the Wikimedia Foundation on why every

donors and community members; we move together.” In

funder should consider participatory grantmaking.

this instance, the threshold for risk for the foundation is



14

Similarly, NoVo Foundation—a social justice-oriented

A foundation that seeks to sharpen its focus or broaden

family foundation with a deep commitment to addressing

its impact is well served by taking the time to understand

the structural barriers that perpetuate inequality—held a

and discuss its social compact. A clear and shared

year-long listening tour to engage and invite ideas from

understanding of its social compact can help a foundation

local communities on what is needed to advance the

to more effectively make decisions, prioritize and align

movement for girls and young women of color in the United

resources, and ensure its resources are impacting its

States. In these examples, both foundations are guided by

intended beneficiaries.

their social compacts to put community voice at the center of decision making.


Click Here to Hear More...

Read this blog post from the David Bohnett

on foundation transparency and accountability in

Foundation about how important it is for foundations

the U.S. and Europe from Rien van Gendt, board

to really immerse themselves in the communities

member of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (and

they serve.

former CEO of the Van Leer Group Foundations).


A defining characteristic of most endowed

l

influence the communities it serves? To what

have to define their accountabilities, beyond

degree is the foundation influenced by the

baseline accountabilities to regulators and boards.

communities you serve? Why?

To whom is your foundation responsible? Who

l

are your top three stakeholders—inside the

l

A foundation’s social compact is the source of the foundation’s legitimacy in the ethical sense; this

foundation, and outside of the foundation? l

To what degree does your foundation seek to

foundations is the extraordinary freedom they

sense of legitimacy is often earned, or conferred

Are there certain principles to which your

by others. To what degree does your foundation

foundation feels accountable, such as

derive its sense of legitimacy from the private

founder legacy?

action of its donor? Government? Grantees? Public goodwill? Populations served? Nonprofit sector

What is your foundation’s approach to

writ large? Peer foundations?

transparency? What information does it make publicly available, and why? What does your social

l

Which does your foundation value more, and

compact suggest about what should

why: the freedom that foundations have to act

be shared, and with whom (such as goals,

independently, or the trust that the public confers

how grant decisions are made, lessons

on foundations, which may occasionally constrain

learned, failures)?

independence?



15

Operating Capabilities A foundation’s operating capabilities address the question: What must a foundation not just do or obtain, but excel at in order to achieve its mission? How can it best deploy resources to support its work in alignment with its charter and social compact? Operating capabilities are the dominant approaches

Wellness Foundation’s president and chief executive officer,

that guide how a foundation carries out its work and

Judy Belk, notes, “Most foundations are not the size of Ford

the core competencies, resources, skills, and processes

and Gates—so every ounce of human potential is critical.”

that it cultivates in order to achieve results. Culture plays a role here in how the foundation defines and

To optimize their overall performance to meet emerging

deploys its capabilities.

challenges and opportunities, many foundation leaders are taking a hard look at their organizations’ operating capabilities—and navigating a variety of tensions. These

“All foundations already do impact investing, but they’re not all structured in ways that allow them to understand if their impact is positive, or negative. You have to constantly push yourself to investigate what effect you are having.” Clara Miller, Heron Foundation

tensions fall across six critical dimensions, all of which are interrelated. Through the Theory of the Foundation initiative’s inquiry process, foundation leaders identified the following key operating capabilities that inform how they carry out their work: decision making, resourcing, flexibility, initiative, programming, and relationships. How a foundation approaches each of these capabilities may be considered as a point along a spectrum, as illustrated on p.17. The spectra illustrate the underlying dynamics of how work is actually done in a foundation. Although there is no “right” place to be on any of these spectra, an individual foundation’s choices have important implications for its operations and organizational culture. For example, a centralized approach may lead to more coordinated investment; a broad approach may lead to more intentional learning across fields. Shifting a foundation’s position along

Some foundations can easily group their programs into

these spectra is often a matter of culture change, requiring

a handful of broad issue areas, such as the environment

intensive and intentional work.

or education—but are less clear about the operating capabilities that inform how they carry out their work within a program or across the foundation as a whole, such as their approach to resourcing and building relationships. These foundations may struggle to develop and manage capabilities, or end up heavily weighted in certain capabilities and woefully under-resourced in others.

GrantCraft Connection Use GrantCraft’s guide Supporting Grantee Capacity to discuss your foundation’s approach to supporting grantees. How does your approach reflect where your foundation sits on the spectrum of each of the six operating capabilities identified in

Whatever their life-cycle stage or size, all foundations try

this chapter?

to balance their missions and resources. The California



16

What’s Your Operating Capabilities Approach? Decision Making CENTRALIZED

How and where decisions are made and, as a result, how much variability or consistency exists within the foundation

DECENTRALIZED

Resourcing BUILD

How the foundation resources its work, including indirect time allocated to support key programmatic goals beyond grantmaking

BUY

Flexibility CREATIVE

RESPONSIVE

BROAD

INDEPENDENT


How the foundation implements its work and the amount of latitude the staff has in interpreting core strategy

Initiative How the foundation sees its role at the highest level

Programming How the foundation tackles its areas of focus

Relationships How the foundation sees its role and interacts with peer funders

DISCIPLINED

PROACTIVE

DEEP

NETWORKED


17

Key Operating Capabilities DECISION MAKING Decentralized Centralized This refers to how and where decisions are made and, as a result, how much variability or consistency exists within the foundation. Do the foundation’s programs operate independently? Or are key program strategy and design decisions made centrally, with each program taking on an implementation role? How much latitude do individual program officers have? How much effort goes into

(building internal capability)? Do these patterns hold true across all program areas (which might place it farther at one end of the spectrum), or do they vary across programs (placing it closer to the middle)? At the Heron Foundation, president Clara Miller examined current operating capabilities and then took steps to evolve them toward the build end of this spectrum. “We decided that we needed to do more than just conduct financial

integration across program areas or functions?

transactions,” she notes. “We also needed to leverage these

At the Ford Foundation, notes Cardona, where and how

building and helping others to make deals. So we’ve moved

decisions are made is changing. “Research, strategy, and decision making at the foundation traditionally rested at the level of the individual program officer. We operated on a bit of an academic model; as in a university, program officers came in with a specific discipline, and were hired because they had a research agenda to pursue and were then authorized to go forth and pursue it. Over the last eight years, the foundation has been gradually moving away from that. We condensed the overall number of lines of work; now, we are further refining our focus, and enabling more coordination across the foundation to integrate regional offices and to engage directors across the foundation in tackling inequality. This all requires different capabilities in our program directors and officers; directors previously had grantmaking responsibilities, but today are much more focused on strategy and management.” A shift in decision-making approach can necessitate a shift in staff competencies—in this case, from direct grantmaking to strategy and management.

RESOURCING Buy Build This refers to how the foundation resources its work, including indirect time allocated to support key programmatic goals beyond grantmaking. Does the foundation build out its internal operations deeply, does it share back-office or other critical functions with other foundations, or does it buy outside expertise? To what extent does the foundation act as grantmaker and/or investor (buying external expertise) compared to operating programs or carrying out work through its own staff


transactions by being out in the investment community, by beyond thinking of transactional relationships with grantees as the prime influence—we now put other voices to our work, not as a broadcast, but as a community. ” A shift in resourcing approach—in this case, to leverage financial transactions by building internal capacity—can have ripple effects on internal and external relationships.

FLEXIBILITY Disciplined Creative This refers to how the foundation implements its work, and to the amount of latitude staff have in interpreting core strategy. Though a strategic plan or set of issue priorities may be developed collaboratively across an entire foundation or handed down from senior leadership, implementation of these plans or priorities often lies with individual program staff. What latitude does staff have for interpreting the core strategy or issue priorities? Are they encouraged to be creative and adaptive as they develop their grantmaking and other program activities, or does the foundation tend toward a disciplined and strict adherence to a central or shared plan of action? Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen of Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen Foundation notes, “Philanthropy is a bridge between personal values and passions, resources and community needs, and welfare and enhancement. It is both art and science. We must account for the strengths and scale of institutional philanthropy, as well as the personal motivations and desires that drive the founders, leadership, and staff.” For this foundation, striking a balance between creative and disciplined approaches is paramount.


18

INITIATIVE Proactive Responsive This refers to how the foundation sees its role as a change maker in society. Does it take a responsive approach, supporting goals and initiatives defined by leaders in their field or community, or does the foundation see itself as the creator of solutions, designing its own goals and initiatives? Does the foundation respond to efforts emerging from the field, or does it instead develop its own theory of change? Foundations may find themselves between the two ends of this spectrum. For example, some may have a generally responsive grantmaking strategy, but certain initiatives are proactive; others may develop their theory of change or overall strategy in a more responsive or collaborative approach with nonprofit leaders but implement this work in a more proactive manner through key initiatives that they

the big foundations are conglomerates with various goals. What’s most important is the internal self-discipline of being clear about goals, and being willing to monitor how they are doing in achieving those goals. Most foundations, even many of the big ones, don’t impose that degree of selfdiscipline on themselves.” A single foundation may have several programs that fall along different places on the programming spectrum.

RELATIONSHIPS Networked Independent This refers to how the foundation sees its role and interacts with peer funders or other potential partners, including the public and private sectors. Does the foundation tend to take solitary or unilateral action, which is often described as exhibiting leadership, risk taking, accountability, and

design themselves.

ownership of an issue? Or does the foundation tend to

At The California Endowment, which develops and

collaboration, and even co-creation, seeking leverage and a

deploys its own theory of change and is at the proactive end of this spectrum, Robert Ross observes, “I don’t understand the recent wave of aversion and critique of ‘strategic philanthropy’; how does one gauge progress towards mission without a base strategy or theory of change and some key measures for tracking purposes?” In alignment with this approach, the foundation does not accept unsolicited letters of intent or proposals; funding opportunities are by invitation only, to organizations the foundation identifies as a potential match with its theory of change.

take a networked approach with a focus on co-funding, larger sphere of influence and impact? William and Flora Hewlett Foundation president Larry Kramer, reflecting on the foundation’s collaborative, networked approach, notes, “However much progress we can realistically expect to make, we’ll do more of it working together with other foundations than working alone. This level of collaboration does require changes at the operational level—big changes. You cannot simply sit back, develop your own strategy, get board approval to proceed in a particular way, and then go and find someone to collaborate with.” At Hewlett, respect, consultation, and

PROGRAMMING Deep Broad This refers to how the foundation tackles its areas of focus. Does the foundation favor having well-defined programs with clear boundaries, or does it define its role in terms of a broad social change agenda with greater variety among the groups it supports? Does it see its signal achievements as having been in highly specific areas with these triumphs having ripple effects that reach the systems level, or from “big bet” or field-building grantmaking that has seeded an

collaboration with others in the field have been identified as essential to their outcome-focused philanthropy approach—internally, among cross-functional staff teams, and externally. A foundation that takes a networked approach is likely to actively seek out opportunities to co-create strategy and programming. Foundations that share a networked approach often collaborate with one another as a network. For example, the Ford, John S. and James L. Knight, John D. and Catherine

approach, movement, or strategy for change?

T. MacArthur, Mozilla, and Open Society foundations came

Paul Brest, faculty co-director of the Stanford Center on

them to collectively identify and seed interventions and

Philanthropy and Civil Society and former president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, notes, “Many of


together to launch NetGain, a partnership that enabled investment opportunities for their own foundations and to share those insights with the field.


19

Taken together, these operating capabilities represent

operating model: we have X number of programs and X

a dynamic set of traits that interact frequently with one

number of program officers, so we chop up the program

another and may, over time, shift in direction or dominance.

budgets in a specific way and then land on ‘we can make

Finding the right point of balance is a significant and

X number of grants.’ Instead, at Heron we began to ask

ongoing challenge for foundation leaders. Shifts along

what level of investment is needed to make a difference

these spectra often require them to scout new staff, invest

here? And it became clear pretty quickly that a different

in professional development for current staff, engage their

set of capabilities was needed.” Conversely, a strong set

boards in dialogue to evaluate their operating models in

of operating capabilities may exert an outsize influence

relation to the foundation’s charter and social compact, and

on the other elements of a foundation’s theory—leading

ensure alignment.

a foundation to inadvertently remain stuck in its current capabilities or to prioritize them over its social compact or

For example, a foundation’s board of trustees may

charter. As Ford Foundation president Darren Walker notes,

empower a new foundation CEO to move in a new

“Foundations have to interrogate their own behaviors,

direction but may meet resistance given the foundation’s

practices, and policy. This is not something that can be

dominant set of operating capabilities—requiring a

taken on superficially. It needs to be taken on seriously.

major reorientation of those capabilities. As the Heron

You need to do an honest self-assessment that can be

Foundation’s Clara Miller has observed, “Decision making

very painful; has implications for talent, organization, and

in foundations can sometimes be a function of the

priorities; and can be very disruptive.” The Theory of the Foundation framework can help foundations to ground their self-assessments in their distinct elements—charter,

GrantCraft Connection Further reflect on your foundation’s

social compact, operating capabilities—and facilitate deeper understanding of how they align and manifest at the operating level.

operating capabilities with GrantCraft’s “Roles@Work,” deck, which drills down into 29 roles funders

A foundation that seeks to strengthen its work should

commonly play—such as analyst, bridge builder,

take the time to understand its operating capabilities and

convener, idea mover—and offers insight on how to

how they constrain or enhance the foundation’s overall

strengthen them.

effectiveness, and explore opportunities to rebalance their overall approach.


l

What capabilities are distinctive at your

Do you think your grantees and other

foundation? What are your special strengths

stakeholders understand your operating

and what are some areas to be developed?

capabilities? How does this level of understanding inform your interactions?

Are your capabilities consistent across the whole foundation, or does each program bring

l

l

l

Are there capabilities that are core to your work

a distinct set (for instance, reactive for arts but

that aren’t addressed in this chapter? What are

proactive for community development)?

they, and how might they connect with others?

How well does your foundation “walk the

l

If your foundation was in start-up mode today,

talk” —are any of the foundation’s stated

which capabilities do you think would be most

capabilities more aspirational than others?

important to design in—and which could be spun off or discarded?



20

Takeaways for Funders Foundation leaders today are looking for better ways to lead their organizations through change. As they adapt to meet emerging challenges and new opportunities, evaluating where they’ve been will provide insight on what they will need for the journey ahead. The Theory of the Foundation provides a useful

A foundation’s theory of itself sits at the center of its

framework—charter, social compact, and operating

strategic intent: What will the foundation do, and not do—

capabilities—to help funders navigate through change

and why?

and more effectively align resources within and across foundations. It brings critical areas of practice, so often

In practice, a foundation’s theory or core framework—

left in the shade, more fully into the light. Robert Rosen,

its charter, social compact, and operating capabilities—

director of philanthropic partnerships at the Bill &

come together to inform an overall operating model.

Melinda Gates Foundation, observes, “It’s tough enough

Operating models are the organizational structures inside

to collaborate: know thyself before trying to know others.”

a foundation that enable it to reliably and consistently

The framework enables foundations to do just that; to

deliver the combination of capabilities needed to support

get to know themselves better and, by using a common

its chosen approach or strategy. Operating models define

framework, to more effectively connect with others.

where critical work happens in an organization and therefore how resources should be deployed in order to support that work—and ensure that people inside the

“It’s tough enough to collaborate: know thyself before trying to know others.” Robert Rosen, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

foundation are aligned around a common understanding. This common understanding is key to a foundation’s culture and is a powerful motivator and enabler of essential behaviors. Operating models also reveal fundamental differences in how foundations view what’s important, where and how they can add value, and, ultimately, how they achieve

Tapping more deeply into a foundation’s charter, social

impact. Several distinct operating models that illustrate

compact, and operating capabilities will benefit not only the

these differences are emerging from RPA’s research, such

foundation but its partners, stakeholders, and communities

as talent agency (select, strengthen, and promote change

too. At the Tecovas Foundation, consideration of this

agents closest to the issue), think tank (apply expertise

framework has helped to highlight how conceptions of this small family foundation’s social compact evolved over time. The foundation’s executive director and vice chair, Mary Galeti, notes, “The origin of our family foundation is rooted

Action Step

in our family business. The foundation was envisioned as a

Take 15 minutes to catalog the ways you see your

mechanism by which we, as a family, could practice working

foundation’s charter, social compact, and operating

together in low-risk contexts. Today, we have dramatically

capabilities in action—at the program and foundation

changed our orientation. We recognize that the work of our foundation isn’t actually about us, and we are exploring where our charter and capabilities meet our social

levels. What surprises you? What inspires you? What is your foundation really good at? What opportunities do you see for strengthening your foundation’s work?

compact, to better define and address multiple levels of accountability—to our family, to our grantees, to our community stakeholders, and to the field of philanthropy itself.”



21

to design solutions, find implementers), field builder (grow organizations and movements to a point at which they could have a major impact), and campaign manager (use institutional power to get a policy/solution adopted broadly). Though foundations are rarely wholly and completely a “single model,” they do tend to lean toward one model while also incorporating traits of others. When it is well executed, the foundation’s operating model becomes a hallmark or defining characteristic of its approach,

Action Step Identify colleagues in other foundations who are interested in discussing your respective foundations’ theories and operating models. Consider how they constrain or support your effectiveness individually, and collectively in partnership with others. What points of convergence and divergence do you see?

translating the core framework into practical application. For example, the New York State Health Foundation

Lisa Hamilton, the foundation’s vice president, notes, “We

illustrates aspects of the campaign manager model.

are committed to sharing effective solutions. So when we

President and Chief Executive Officer David Sandman notes,

figure out something works, we think it’s really important

“We are a health-conversion foundation whose mission

to broadly disseminate those solutions so that others can

is to improve the health of all New Yorkers. When people

take action too—and together, we can move the needle in a

tell me, ‘I thought the foundation was much bigger than

positive direction. To that end, we have invested in building

it is!’ it always feels like a huge compliment. We strive

and strengthening the KIDS COUNT network of advocates

to be more than grantmakers—we are change makers.

in each state as a platform for sharing good policy ideas.”

Access to decision makers is a key strategy for us, so our

In this example, the foundation’s independent, proactive

communications and outreach are critical. I write a regular

capabilities enable it to strengthen the field of child

blog, and a senator in New York recently called me and

advocacy just as its charter and social compact are rooted in

said ‘I just read your blog, and thought: we need to talk!’ We

the experiences of the founder’s mother—a widow whose

ended up in an hour-long meeting with her and her staff.

struggle and sacrifice now serve as an enduring legacy for

That is impact: We didn’t make a grant; instead, our in-

children and families.

house capabilities enabled our access to decision makers.” The New York State Health Foundation’s charter, social

The Wikimedia Foundation illustrates aspects of the field-

compact, and capabilities come together in its campaign

builder model as well, as it pioneers and promulgates

manager operating model: the foundation proactively

participatory grantmaking approaches at the program,

builds its own communications and convening capacity to

foundation, and sector levels. To facilitate engagement and

improve health policy and spread effective programs and,

foster transparency at every stage, the foundation’s entire

ultimately, improve the health of all New Yorkers.

grantmaking process is conducted publicly online—from proposal intake and feedback on strengths and weaknesses

The Annie E. Casey Foundation illustrates aspects of

to funding decisions.

the field-builder model, for example, through its KIDS COUNT Network—a group of child advocacy and research organizations representing every state and using data to promote smart policies on a range of childhood issues.

Click Here to Learn More... from Katy Love, director of resources, Wikimedia Foundation, about how the foundation operationalizes its charter, social compact, and operating capabilities.

Action Step Translate your foundation’s theory into an actionable model. Download and complete the “philanthropy canvas” worksheet at the end of this paper, to help you map current operating models—at the program or foundation level—or develop new models.

As the examples above demonstrate, foundations may deploy distinct operating models at the whole foundation and individual program levels. At times, a foundation may have multiple operating models at work within a single program area, given external constraints, opportunities, or the varying needs of the field or system



22

it seeks to influence. (A fuller publication on the topic of

distinctions and commonalities among foundations, and

operating models is in development and will be available at

to provide a useful framework for the sector as a whole

rockpa.org/expertise/theory-of-the-foundation.)

to reflect, align resources, and achieve greater impact.

The Theory of the Foundation framework is designed to

With this framework as a guide, reflection can spark

help funders analyze and reflect on the critical elements

insights, enable dialogue about strategic intent, and

that underpin a foundation’s operating model: charter,

help to build greater alignment—so that funders of all

social compact, and operating capabilities.

kinds will be better positioned to achieve the results they

Click Here to Learn More...

seek, together.

from Jarrett Lucas, executive director, Stonewall Community Foundation, who discusses the value

Action Step

of regular institutional introspection and how the

Share this GrantCraft paper with your foundation’s

Theory of the Foundation can be adapted for use

trustees and staff, and then host a brown-bag

by a community foundation.

conversation inside your foundation about how your foundation’s theory has shaped its development as an

Whether used individually or in concert with others, the

organization over time.

Theory of the Foundation can help funders to create a shared vocabulary for reflection, to illuminate important


How can you apply the Theory of the

organizational life cycle had on your foundation’s

foundation? How might a conversation about

operating model?

capabilities play out during a senior staff meeting or board retreat?

l

What influence, if any, has your foundation’s

Foundation framework to your own your charter, social compact, and operating

l

l

l

When you look out across the field of philanthropy, are there certain new or emerging operating models that strike you as intriguing?

How would you describe your foundation’s

How and why? What elements do you think might

overall operating model (whether or not one

“fit” within your foundation’s operating model—

has been explicitly articulated)?

and which would not?

Does your foundation manifest more than one operating model? Do different programs have different models?



23

TRANSLATE YOUR FOUNDATION FRAMEWORK INTO AN ACTIONABLE MODEL

Philanthropy Canvas A foundation’s framework (charter, social compact, and operating capabilities) sits at the center of its strategic intent: What will the foundation do, and not do—and why?

Once a foundation has clarified its Theory of the

conditions; it brings into focus the full landscape of

Foundation, it is ready to translate that framework into

relationships, constraints, and opportunities.

an actionable model. Use the philanthropy canvas at the program or foundationTo help with that process, RPA created a tool called the

wide level, or both—to help you map current operating

“philanthropy canvas,” a variant of the business model

models or develop new ones. For more guidance on

canvas created by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves

how to use such a canvas tool for strategic planning and

Pigneur. This canvas invites foundation staff, trustees,

organizational assessment, visit: rockpa.org/expertise/

and other key stakeholders to map out the elements of a

theory-of-the-foundation.

1

foundation’s broader strategy and activities in relationship to both its core framework, which lies at the heart of the

To begin, consider the framing question and items in each

organization, and the external environment that it seeks to

box of the canvas on the following page, as well as the

influence and is in turn influenced by.

most important elements of the outside world described in the four areas surrounding the canvas. Invite members

With the philanthropy canvas, foundations can map

of your foundation’s leadership to offer their suggestions

the relationships among a foundation’s core drivers

for how they would fill out each box on the canvas for

and articulate the foundation’s strategic intent. The

your foundation and then facilitate a conversation with

philanthropy canvas situates a foundation’s framework

colleagues and/or peers in other foundations to reflect on

(charter, social compact, capabilities) at the center, and

these initial suggestions to begin your reflections.

moves out to encompass partners, resources, and external

1. For more, see: Alexander Osterwalder, Yves Pigneur, Tim Clark, and Alan Smith, Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2010).



24

Philanthropy Canvas Worksheet STATE OF THE WORLD/ISSUE Problem environment that you are trying to change

Where is the change?

Who will help you?

People, species, organizations, and/or places

Co-creators, co-funders, and supporters

How do you do it?

How do you interact?

Key activities

Relationships

REGULATORY & POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

ACTOR LANDSCAPE

What do you do and why? Charter, social compact, and capabilities

The funders, nonprofits, and other players working on the issue you care about

Legal and cultural policy limitations that define the range of possible actions

What do you need? Key resources

How do you distribute or disseminate? Channels

What will it cost?

How will you fund it?

Budget & opportunity costs

Capital, income, and/or co-funders

RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS Financial resources available, internally and across the field



25

ABOUT FOUNDATION CENTER Established in 1956, Foundation Center is the leading source of information about philanthropy worldwide. Through data, analysis, and training, it connects people who want to change the world to the resources they need to succeed. Foundation Center maintains the most comprehensive database on U.S. and, increasingly, global grantmakers and their grants — a robust, accessible knowledge bank for the sector. It also operates research, education, and training programs designed to advance knowledge of philanthropy at every level. Thousands of people visit Foundation Center’s website each day and are served in its five regional hubs and its network of more than 400 funding information centers located in public libraries, community foundations, and educational institutions nationwide and around the world. For more information, please visit foundationcenter.org, call (212) 620-4230, or tweet us at @fdncenter.

ABOUT ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) is a nonprofit that partners with individuals, families, and institutions to help make philanthropy more thoughtful and effective. Since 2002, we have facilitated more than $3 billion in grantmaking worldwide, establishing ourselves as one of the world’s largest and most trusted philanthropic service organizations. We advise established and aspiring philanthropists, foundations, and corporations; manage innovative, early-stage nonprofits; and share insight and learning with our clients, our community, and the sector. By continuing to build on lessons learned over more than a century, our goal is to help define the next generation of philanthropy and to foster a worldwide culture of giving. For more information, visit us at rockpa.org.

THEORY OF THE FOUNDATION FUNDERS Since its launch in 2014, dozens of foundations have contributed to the development of the Theory of the Foundation as funders of and participants in this research in the United States and Europe. We thank the following funders for their support and participation, along with almost 40 additional foundations that have shared their insights and reflections for specific Theory of the Foundation research efforts. • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation • The Andrea & Charles Bronfman Philanthropies • The Annie E. Casey Foundation • Arcadia Charitable Trust • Arcus Foundation • Barr Foundation • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • The California Wellness Foundation • Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation • Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family • Conrad N. Hilton Foundation • The David & Lucile Packard Foundation • Episcopal Health Foundation • Esmée Fairbairn Foundation • Fondazione CRT • Ford Foundation • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation • Heron Foundation • Houston Endowment • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation • The Kresge Foundation

• Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland • Lumina Foundation • Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies • Nathan Cummings Foundation • Newman’s Own Foundation • Oak Foundation • Porticus • Rasmuson Foundation • Robert Bosch Stiftung • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation • Rockefeller Brothers Fund • The Rockefeller Foundation • S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation • Simons Foundation • Stavros Niarchos Foundation • Surdna Foundation • TIAA Institute • The Wallace Foundation • Wellcome Trust • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

In addition to leaders from many of the funders of the Theory of the Foundation initiative, we thank the following people specifically for generously sharing their experience and insight, which informed this GrantCraft paper: • Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen Foundation

• Larry Kramer, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

• Judy Belk, The California Wellness Foundation

• Katy Love, Wikimedia Foundation

• Paul Brest, Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society

• Jarrett Lucas, Stonewall Community Foundation

• Chris Cardona, Ford Foundation

• Massimo Lapucci, Fondazione CRT

• Arelis Diaz, W.K. Kellogg Foundation

• Clara Miller, Heron Foundation

• Bob Forrester, Newman’s Own Foundation

• Will Miller, The Wallace Foundation

• Mary Galeti, Tecovas Foundation

• Robert Rosen, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

• Rien van Gendt, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (Board Member)

• Robert Ross, The California Endowment

• Lisa Hamilton, The Annie E. Casey Foundation

• David Sandman, New York State Health Foundation

• Diane Kaplan, Rasmuson Foundation

• Darren Walker, Ford Foundation

For additional guides and other materials in the GrantCraft series, visit grantcraft.org.